April 18, 2006

A Generals' Conspiracy?

A collegue mentioned to me he thought there was something nefarious and organized about all these generals coming out at the same time and calling for Donald Rumsfeld to resign. I tossed the notion aside thinking it was too conspiratorial. Tony Blankley wonders himself:

More specifically, can a series of lawful resignations turn into a mutiny? And if they are agreed upon in advance, have the agreeing generals formed a felonious conspiracy to make a mutiny?

This may sound far-fetched, but in Sunday's Washington Post the very smart, very well-connected former Clinton Ambassador to the United Nations Richard Holbrooke published an article entitled "Behind the Military Revolt." In this article he predicts that there will be increasing numbers of retired generals speaking out against Sec. Rumsfeld. Then, shockingly, he writes the following words: "If more angry generals emerge -- and they will -- if some of them are on active duty, as seems probable . . . then this storm will continue until finally it consumes not only Donald Rumsfeld."

...

But if active generals in a theater of war are planning such a series of events, they may be illegally conspiring together to do that which would be legal if done without agreement. And Ambassador Holbrooke's article is -- if it is not a fiction (which I doubt it is) -- strong evidence of such an agreement. Of course, a conspiracy is merely an agreement against public policy.

I wouldn't call it seditious since all the critics are out of the military with no evidence they are telling leaders still serving to ignore or undermine Rumsfeld. What I find most interesting is much of the ex-generals' concerns deal with pre-war planning. That's not news. There was a public decision on that in the 2004 election. More voters chose to retain President Bush than call for change with Senator Kerry.

"Seven Days in April -- Generals Prepare to 'Revolt' Against Rumsfeld"

"Behind the Military Revolt"

"Our Intimidated Generals"

"A Generals Revolt?"